Discussion in 'Pure Football' started by Agent Zigzag, Dec 5, 2010.
www.Timesonline.co.uk is subscription only. Anyone got a copy of today's article?
I'm subscribed & can oblige:
Fifa, the international football body, is being asked to investigate a whistleblower’s allegations that two of its executive members had agreed deals worth $1.5m for their votes ahead of last week’s contest to host the World Cup.
The whistleblower, a former employee of one of the bid teams, was present at meetings this year when offers of cash for votes were allegedly made. In a series of conversations with The Sunday Times the whistleblower gave dates, locations and names of those present at the meetings, including the Fifa executive committee members involved.
“It was basically money for their votes,” said the whistleblower, who fears reprisals from the former employers and does not wish to be identified.
Yesterday Ivan Lewis, shadow secretary of state for culture, media and sport, said he would write to Fifa highlighting the claims: “These allegations are very serious and Fifa now has a clear choice to launch an independent investigation with anyone found guilty thrown out of football, or face the fact that its authority as the governing body of football is no longer credible.”
If the allegations are proved to be true then it could cast doubts on the validity of last week’s votes by the Fifa executive committee.
This weekend recriminations are continuing following England’s defeat by Russia for the 2018 World Cup. Qatar was awarded the 2022 World Cup.
On Friday Roger Burden, acting chairman of the Football Association, stood down in protest after England received a paltry two votes. Burden said he could no longer deal with Fifa officials because he could not trust them.
When The Sunday Times revealed Fifa’s cash for votes scandal in October, we reported concerns that England was destined to lose. One former Fifa executive committee member told our undercover reporters that the committee did not like England because its bid team refused to do corrupt deals. Some members claimed they had been put off voting for England because of media allegations.
Andy Anson, the England bid leader, described this as a “crap excuse”. He said: “When they promised our vote they didn’t launch into a tirade about our media. They only did that when we walked back into our hotel yesterday.”
The whistleblower first spoke to The Sunday Times on the evening before the World Cup vote and claimed the proposed deal offered to the Fifa officials was for payments of $1.5m per vote to be made by a sports organisation on behalf of a bid committee.
The source alleged the cash was to go to football federations linked to the two Fifa officials but no questions were asked about how it would be used: “It was said in such a way that ‘we are giving it to you’. It was going to their federation. Basically, if they took it into their pocket, we don’t give a jack.”
As the payment was to secure the vote it would have been improper, no matter whether it went to the individual or their federation.
The whistleblower’s claims are similar to allegations that The Sunday Times has already sent to Fifa following our undercover investigation. No action has been taken on these allegations so far, although six Fifa officials were suspended after our original allegations.
Yesterday John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport committee, said: “The outcome of the bid suggests not only that there needs to be an examination of any allegations of corruption ... but there is also a case for having a fundamental look at how host countries are chosen.”
Hardly the smoking gun I was hoping for
Every little helps chip away at FIFA's credibility.
Blatter thinks he is immune.
Wait till the sponsors start feeling the adverse publicity.
When their good names are tainted they will run for cover.
Blatter is the emperor with no clothes - just keep on chipping
What's the difference between a wad of cash and a promise of a friendly or a week at the Dorchester, please?
I'd like to see something like the Russian/USA olympics when countries didnt turn up. Imagine after the qualifications some teams said they werent going, at the last minute. If some of the major countries didnt turn up it would definately change things at FIFA. Sponsers would be livid, Fans who bought tickets for certain games would be livid. Ticket touts would end up skint!!!
Cant see it happening but would be interesting.
Is this a serious question?
If I said to you: Teejay, you can have $1.5m OR and all expecnces paid trip to Dorcester... this probably answers your question.
Warners also has companies set up for contracts (which he then sells on to sub contractors) so i can't see him suffering to much if i'm honest.
The difference between open diplomacy involving associations and secret personal bribes?
Exactly, if it's out in the open that's fine. If it's done in secret or by the transfer of money to non-Fifa personal accounts it's not. Not complicated.
Get the feeling Rupert Murdoch will be doing all he can to destroy Fifa.
Separate names with a comma.